Environmental discussions around a delicious Turkey!

On my way up to New York I thought to myself How on Earth am I going to find someone who disagrees with me on environmental issues? I was going to have dinner at my Aunt's house and the only people there were going to be my 2 uncles and their respective families, my grandma and her boyfriend. All of whom have strictly leftist ideals and are constantly making a point of putting them forth. 

So when I launched the topic of environmentalism and the problems and solutions therein, both my uncles took strong stances on the issue and put forth ideas that did nothing but reinforce my own.  But then I heard my grandma's boyfriend arguing with my Aunt and it reminded me of how much this man loooovveeesss to play the devil's advocate. (Why? I haven't quite figured that one out yet..)

So I walked up to him later that night and talked about future careers I was considering and I let him know what I had learned this year and how strongly I felt about the fact that we should try to change the system, rather than changing the people.  I then made the statement that the world would be a much better place if people could think long term rather than short term and just move away from fossil fuels today because we have alternatives rather than wait another 25 years until supplies run out and we've polluted the Earth that much more. Surely enough he counter-argued my point. He answered Well if we do a sudden transition what will happen to the poor miner in a third world country. No one will be here to train him on renewables, he'll just loose his job and his life will be done for.    I listened to him go on about how we can't just change the system, we are too engrained in the system for any change to occur without negative impacts on people, etc., etc. Basically saying we messed up and our Earth is going to pay for it. I listened to him awhile, fighting the urge to counter his arguments and finally I just asked the simple question: well then, should we just let things happen and watch the earth get destroyed even though we have a solution to this problem? And of course, to this he answered No. But it's going to be a long and strenuous process. 

This talk made me realize that, if the person you are talking to shares the same concern as you, it is important that both parties be aware of it so that even if they differ on ways to solve this common problem, they listen to each other's comments and arguments in a constructive way. 

(It was difficult to do so in that case though because Paul wasn't exactly listening to my reactions to his comments...) It also made me frustrated that a lot of the good arguments I had against his comments came to me later in the night.

I tried to present to him the ideas expressed by Cradle to Cradle and Maniates, but his answer was on the pessimistic side, saying that since the system is too complicated to change we shouldn't try. I think part of this comment is rooted in the fact that he is 80 years old and has seen people try and fail too many times for things to actually work. He actually mentioned the health care bill as a proof that even if people had the right ideas, things just can't get by politics in the US. But by the end of the conversation I was able to make him agree with me that through innovative schemes, we would be able to make a difference and a change in the system.   

Being less bad isn’t being good

Too many times I’ve read or heard people say “we’re doomed”. And that, I think, is an awful message to send out to our society. Yes, we’ve destroyed or polluted nearly all ecosystems on Earth, but now that we know that we did it and how we did it, we can repair our mistakes. It will take time to return ecosystems to their pristine state and we will not be able to recover all ecosystems but if we find a way to completely stop polluting our environment, then restorative actions will bring about incredible positive change. And William McDonough and Michael Braungart offer such solutions.

I therefore find "Cradle to Cradle" to have, by far, the most inspiring ideas, out of all the pieces we’ve read so far. In their book, William McDonough and Michael Braungart not only bring up a great point that “being less bad isn’t being good” but they offer solutions to the problems we are facing. Instead of listing all the things that humans have done wrong and are still doing wrong and leaving the reader in a pit of despair they offer tangible, inspiring solutions. I find that very existing and uplifting.

I think the authors are correct in saying that “Eco-efficiency /…/ presents little more than the illusion of change.” However, I think that putting their ideas in place is going to be very challenging on the political spectrum since it requires great cooperation between industries and their (often many) suppliers. But if everyone starts thinking in a similar way as William McDonough and Michael Braungart, then I believe our problem would be solved.

I would lastly like to point out Michael Braungart’s quote on page 11: “I directed Greenpeace's chemistry department and helped the organization to protest more knowledgeably, but I soon realized that protest wasn't enough. We needed to develop a process for change.” As much respect as I have for Greenpeace, I agree with Michael Braungart. Environmental activism and education won’t do the trick. We must offer people alternatives that have no negative impact on the environment. If people don’t care about the environment, they won’t bother to live by Greenpeace’s advice of saving water and turning the lights off when you leave the room. But with tangible evidence that 100% eco-friendly alternatives exist to every negative thing we do on Earth, politicians will be more inclined to set strong environmental regulations since it will be possible for industries to abide by them.

Cradle to Cradle

I really enjoyed reading “cradle to cradle” by William McDonough and Michael Braungart. Expect its funky smell, I liked the in and outside of the book. As outside of the book, I mean the cool but soft texture of the book. As inside of the book, I loved the authors’ optimism, easy and simple writing style and newer or different approach to environmentalism. Most of the time I read the environmental work, I was so dragged by its depressing atmosphere. Usually, works on environmentalism address what we have done wrong in the past and how hopefulness our future is due to that.
However, cradle to cradle untangle such a crucial and serious problem in friendly but persuasive and effective ways. I loved several phrases that authors put in: “Waste equals food,” “Being less bad is not being good,” and “Do more with less”. Many times people mistakenly think that they saved environment by being less polluting, consuming or bad. However, we are just simply less bad which is totally different from being good. In addition, it is so true that in the process of saving the environment, we should do it with less. I also agree with authors’ point that unless we completely change the problematic change, we are doing not more than slowing down the problem.
I also liked the idea of eco-friendly architectural change. Buildings and appliances that are built in eco friendly and effective way definitely reduce human impact on the environment. If we change way to build buildings slightly, we could naturally comfort both people and environment. In this sense I am looking forward to tour around the new SIS building that is built in eco friendly way.

"Cradle to Cradle," the new SIS building, and the future of design

I've been really enjoying reading "Cradle to Cradle" for the last couple of classes. Many of the readings we have had this semester have talked about how we can change people's mindsets and change policies in the nation, but it never even occured to me that perhaps we should not be expending our energy in trying to improve the system we already have, but that we should in fact be throwing the current system out the window. I love the phrase the authors use that says that being less bad is not being good, it's just being less bad. I think that the phrase is extremely resonant and poignant since it hits upon the fact that most of the efforts done to make the system less harmful to the environment are not going to truly stop this problem, because the problem is the system itself.

I tend to be someone who is easily persuaded by a good argument--I admit it. If someone presents to me an argument that is well researched and well organized, I find myself more often than not atleast giving some credence to their argument by the end of it. I believe that in the case of "Cradle to Cradle", however, the argument truly is solid despite my tendency to find myself persuaded easily. The authors brings up many excellent points, such as the fact that the system we live in is not sustainable, and that trying to reduce problems within the system will only slow things down, and not stop them completely which is what is required in order to stave off global warming. Eco-efficiency will not be enough to save us in the long run; the authors are correct that we must turn to eco-effectiveness which means rethinking the way things are made.

Besides making sense in terms of an approach to help the environment, the design ideas brought forth in "Cradle to Cradle" are appealing. I really loved the description of how buildings should be like cherry trees, taking in light for solar energy, wind, etc. and interacting with the natural world and replenishing it when its done. I love the idea of having buildings which interact with the natural world just like the natural world itself--just like a tree! That is incredibly neat. It's exciting, and I'm really proud that AU's new SIS building will incorporate so many of these design techniques and that I attend a school that is working towards buildings from a new design approach that is beneficial to and which benefits from the environment. Everything should work that way. I hope that the author's design ideas will really take off, and was heartened by the video on the authors which we watched in class which illustrated several examples of the visions from "Cradle to Cradle" coming to life.

I think that if more buildings, appliances, etc. are designed in these ecologically effective ways, then people will be able to be proud of what they have accomplished once again, and will start to feel that we are a part of the natural world instead of forces apposing it or trying to control nature. These new design approaches, such as the new SIS building, are beautiful and interact with the environment in important and natural ways which take what nature has to give us in a replenishing, sustainable way. Even though these buildings might cost a little bit more than a building built in other ways, as the example from the video "The Next Industrial Revolution" showed us, sometimes that money can come back when people want to work more because the building is light and appealing and because the buildings have lower energy bills. Putting the authors' design ideas into practice on a wider scale, and harnessing solar power, respecting the planet and all its creatures and getting rid of the whole idea of waste will lead to a more beautiful, prosperous and sustainable world. There are some technical difficulties which need to be worked out in terms of the fact that some products cannot be continuously recyclable and others, but the ideas put forth by the authors of "Cradle to Cradle" are achievable, the technology exists, and can do important work to save our planet. In the future, I hope that these design techniques take over for old design techniques and bring about instrumental changes to the system in order to help the Earth.

Trinity of Despair

First of all, I really enjoyed the videoconference with professor Maniates. It was amazing to me, who is not a good friend with high technology, that we can have a discussion with someone in hundreds miles away from us. It was great to actually see him after reading few works by him.
I think professor Maniates made very interesting and convincing arguments throughout the videoconference, and I agreed with many them. Especially, his “Trinity of Despair” brought up many interesting and new points to me which helped me to look at the environmental issue in slightly different way. How he described the environmental movements to be civil moments practiced by Gandhi or Martine Luther King Jr. was totally new to me. However, it definitely makes sense. Environmental movement should be practiced same as any other movements. Environmental movement should involve a strong leader, time, efforts and devotion by many others.
I agreed with him the most on the part where he talked about Environmental Strategy or Easy Stuff. After reading several Maniates’ articles, we already know Easy stuff would do not do enough for the environment. Environmental crisis that we are facing is too serious that easy stuff like turning off water while brushing teeth would not be enough. Anything hardly would change without our sacrifice. We need fundamental change on our lifestyle or political and economical system to most effectively save the environment.
I also agree with his point that we do not need majority of the poluation on board to bring changes. It could be true that one policy or regulation made by one leader or one small group could be more powerful and effective in helping environment. However, I think it is important to motivate individuals and keep them in the right direction by sharing some responsibilities. Everyone does not have to be on board, but it is crucial that all of us stay alert.

Scarred to Change

I thought Professor Mariates made a good point about the “trinity of despair.” Main stream environmentalist do look at humans and believe that human nature is inherently selfish, everyone has to agree about global warming being a real danger before we can do something about it, and environmental strategy on easy stuff. I don’t understand why we expect all the American population to believe in global warming considering that a large proportion of our population doesn’t believe in evolution. The theory of evolution has been around for a lot longer, and we are still waiting for people to catch on to the theory.

I found it encouraging when Mariates informed us that 69% of the population believes that global warming was a problem. I am rather cynical, so I was surprised to see that the number was so high. I think Mariates brings up a good point, why do we need all 100% of America to believe in global warming for something to be done? He is correct that the Civil Rights Movement did not start with 100% or even 75% of the population believing in equality for all. Slavery was so disputed that we erupted in war. So the environmental movement needs to look past the idea that everyone has to agree. The environmental movement should be encouraged that 69% of the population recognized the threat of global warming, and use this to their advantage. More people believe in global warming than they do not, by almost twice. I think that is encouraging statistics. What is the environmental movement waiting for? If we had waited 150 years to make the theory of evolution a standard theory in science, where would science be?

People are inherently selfish. American policies reflect this assumption very nicely. However in the case of global warming, I don’t think people are being selfish. I work on the Hill, and when people call in upset about Cap and Trade. The number one thing they point out why we can’t implement this policy is either global warming doesn’t exist or it is to expensive for the American public. People are inherently scared of change. It is going to be a large-scale change, when the American public finally decides to implement policies to change our CO2 emissions. People are scarred to change because they can’t imagine what the future is going to look like. No one wants to put their future in someone’s hands when they can’t see the outcome. People also cannot see the big picture. They believe that we need to focus upon the economic crisis, rather than the environment. They view the economic crisis as a more pressing issue. I often wonder what would have happened if we weren’t in recession while President Obama began his term. Would we still be fighting to disbelieve in global warming? Would we still think Cap and Trade was a bad idea? Would the United States become a leader at Copanhagen? It’s impossible to know what is true and what is not. But I still wonder about that.

The environmental strategy of easy stuff is where environmentalist look at this huge problem and proclaim that we must do small things to change the impact of global warming. I found Mariates point to be very interesting, because I never viewed it in that light before. Why do we think planting a tree should be the individual response to global warming rather than policy change? That is nonsensical. I think those environmentalists are so jaded by the lack of initiative to change our ways, that they believe this is the only thing people are willing to do. Working on the hill has shown me that that is not true. Environmentalist should be looking at ways to get people excited and passionate about global warming. The main strategy should be to change our light bulbs out with energy efficient ones. While the recommended guidelines should be followed, this should not be the main environmentalist strategy to get the American Public to change.

-Tracey Swan

Finding Hope in the Trinity of Despair

I find it really hard to go to class and listen to all the terrible things man has inflicted on the Earth. Whether it be international environmental politics or issues in marine science, when it comes to solutions it seems like the majority of what I hear and read about are the many failed attempts to try and do good. 

So when Maniates brought up the “trinity of despair” I thought. Oh man. Not again. I know we failed and are failing but please, give us solutions, not dead-ends. And he did. He pointed out what had to be changed to go in the right direction. Although he stressed the fact that mainstream environmentalism is sending out the wrong message to the global community, he spurred ideas in our heads as too how we should changed out outlook on things to be more positive and effective. So I thought his concept was brilliant, and it really made me think positively and, most importantly, constructively.  

I’ve been reading a lot lately about flawed “plant a tree” environmental strategies and completely agree with the fact that asking people to do little will eventually makes difference is a flawed assumption. However, I never thought of the fact that people think humans is inherently selfish as being a problem. Nor of the fact that social change can be done by small groups of people. I never looked at things this way but now that Maniates made us think about it, I think he has a very good point. 

Still, I’d like to make a couple of points about HN and SC. First, I don’t think people are inherently selfish but I do think that those situated at the top of the production chain are greedy, especially those in control of resource extraction, and that it is creating a big obstruction to the environmental movement. Similarly, even though I understand that you don’t need a lot of people to make a big change I am still skeptical about the power of social movement in a world where the “mean guys” are in control of the very infrastructure environmentalists want to tear down. Our system is built in such a way that big companies have almost more power than governments and the people (esp. true for countries that rely on  resource extraction) so my question would be—what do you do to make that change? how do you change the power structure?

As Maniates pointed out, Ghandi and Martin Luther King managed to turn their  country’s values upside down thanks to small but powerful group of citizens so why couldn’t we?

 I would need more tangible facts to be one hundred percent positive about climate change action but I definately see hope in the "trinity of despair."

 

The Trinity of Despair... Bringing Hope Back to the Environmental Movement

I found the talk with Professor Maniates really interesting, and it definitely expanded my views in terms of different ways to think about how social change in terms of the environment will be the most effective. The Trinity of Despair was particularly interesting because I often find myself falling into that negative trap of thinking that we will never see real environmental movements because so many people still do not believe in global warming or do not think that they should be doing anything to limit global warming. The way in which Professor Maniates framed social change, in terms of bringing up other social movements and leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi, and how he explained that those leaders had very small numbers of people behind them and were still able to bring about social change. I think that Professor Maniates' idea that social change can be brought around if small groups of people come together and alter current societal structures so that making the right environmental choices is a part of the structure and therefore simple for people who are not interested in the environment to do.

I still believe that the most effective form of combatting climate change would occur if most of the population were concerned about climate change and interested in preventing its effects. I think that the task of getting most people behind climate change will be a difficult one, however, and therefore might not be feasible. I like how Professor Maniates' ideas provide an alternative way to go about enacting social change to help the environment that, while not as comprehensive as a global movement would be, can still effect lasting and important change in terms of creating ways for everyone to act sustainably without necessarilly making the conscious decision to do that.

I think that Professor Maniates is correct to bring up the three corners of the "Trinity of Despair" and to force us confront the fact that some of our basic assumptions such as the idea that people are inherently selfish, people will only do small, easy alterations to their daily lives and the idea that everyone has to be with us before environmental sustainability can be achieved, may not be ultimately relevent in terms of the best ways to go about creating social change. We can change structures and greatly aid the environment while breaking away from the "Trinity of Despair," and that's a very promising outlook.

The talk with Professor Maniates on Tuesday made me feel more optimistic about the future of the environmental movement than I have felt about it in a long time, and I think that that in itself has value. If those who are concerned about the environment feel despair, and feel as if no real lasting change will ever be possible due to the three points in the "Trinity of Despair," then change will not happen because those who care about the environment will feel as if there's nothing they can do to help it. Professor Maniates talk brought back that glimmer of hope that the future of the environment and social change in terms of sustainable living can be achieved, if only small groups of concerned individuals, such as our class, get together and change the existing, environmentally degrading systems.

Here's my version...

So...

Catch! Calls the Once-ler!

It's a Truffula Seed!

It's the last one of all,

But it’s not all that you need!

 

Just planting the seed

won’t solve it all

So, go fight the greed

and bring back good deeds.

 

Hide it and treasure it

Till waters come clean,

Till the pitt gets well lit,

and the air turns pristine.

 

If we all work together

to make things better

I guarantee

that the world will decree

That thneeds are worth less

than all of what got

destroyed in that mess.

 

So turn to your leader

And show him the facts

Make him take action

make him change the acts.

 

President Oborax--

Create a new bill! Treat it will care.

We need clean water, we need fresh air.

Or the truffula seed and Bar-ba-loots bears

will quickly disappear into thin air.

 

Learn from my tale...

It’s a question of scale.

Greed in the big guys

will lead to despair.

 

So do not linger

If we all work together,

then the Lorax

and all of his friends

will come back...

And stay forever!

President Oborax call to action take 2

Sorry I am reposting this because the spacing got all jumbled and that is important when it comes to poetry.

Adding on to Lucy’s post:

The Once-ler shouted out with glee

For he couldn’t believe what his eyes could see

The Lorax walking simply forward

Not to be mistaken with a Morward.

The Lorax looked at President Oborax

And said to him, “is that all?

You propose a bill?

That’s no better than a gill!

You must go to the UN

And become a world leader of men.

You must lead the World Summit

Copenhagen cannot be a Plummit.”

President Oborax starred at him

His mouth a wide,

His tonsils a flapping.

How dare this Lorax speak to him like that?

Does he not know he could crush him flat?

President Oborax rose to his full height

And shouted to the Lorax with all his might:

“My bill will have success with Congress.

Do not digress,

For it will be a success.

I have faith in my representatives.

They are not tentative.

The Lorax looked at him sadly,

And wanted to say oh so badly

That Congress would let him down.

The bill would drop like a crown.

“You must go to Copenhagen.

And lead with robust.

Call up to all nations,

Do not go for summations.

Lead this fight,

Without any fright.

Curb carbon emissions by 30%

No less.

The levels must be at 30%

below 1990 level’s.

We can only raise our temperature

By two more degrees.

Or who knows,

The Polar bears may freeze?

Call on all nations,

North and South

Call on all nations

With a Shout.

Something must done,

Nations can not be spun.”

-Tracey Swan

President Oborax call to action

Adding on to Lucy’s post:

The Once-ler shouted out with glee

For he couldn’t believe what his eyes could see

The Lorax walking simply forward

Not to be mistaken with a Morward.

The Lorax looked at President Oborax

And said to him, “is that all?

You propose a bill?

That’s no better than a gill!

You must go to the UN

And become a world leader of men.

You must lead the World Summit

Copenhagen cannot be a Plummit.”

President Oborax starred at him

His mouth a wide,

His tonsils a flapping.

How dare this Lorax speak to him like that?

Does he not know he could crush him flat?

President Oborax rose to his full height

And shouted to the Lorax with all his might:

“My bill will have success with Congress.

Do not digress,

For it will be a success.

I have faith in my representatives.

They are not tentative.

The Lorax looked at him sadly,

And wanted to say oh so badly

That Congress would let him down.

The bill would drop like a crown.

“You must go to Copenhagen.

And lead with robust.

Call up to all nations,

Do not go for summations.

Lead this fight,

Without any fright.

Curb carbon emissions by 30%

No less.

The levels must be at 30%

below 1990 level’s.

We can only raise our temperature

By two more degrees.

Or who knows,

The Polar bears may freeze?

Call on all nations,

North and South

Call on all nations

With a Shout.

Something must done,

Nations can not be spun.”

-Tracey Swan

The Once-ler and President Oborax, Cont.

My added verses to the Once-ler talks to President Oborax:

President Oborax let out a load, “Harumph!”
“I’ve no time for legislation…
What I need is a triumph!”
The Once-ler shook his head
He’s a grouchy old thing
And then he turned bright red
And said, “I’ve thought of a Thing!”
“I’ve thought of a plan”
Grouched the grouching old Once-ler,
“You’ll WAC and not PAT,
Not PAT, but start WAC-ing!
Instead of consuming
Start thinking of shacking!
(“Living in a shack, instead of a palace?”
Interjected Oborax, his voice full of malice)
“Yes indeed!” Cried the Once-ler, “Change’s the word!”
“Change from looking at whether economy is booming
GDP as a measure won’t work—crisis is looming!
You can do it, I know that your voice has got clout—
Change the policies; tell everyone what life is about!”

The Once-ler sat back,
He’d done what he could
He’d told Oborax
About the Lorax,
The Shmoofala bushes and the Striped Shmala wood.
Now it was up to Oborax to take what he’d learned
And make a real impact
Although from some people he might be spurned.

Oborax went home to his house painted white,
He pondered and he thought
Then he sat down to write.
He drafted a letter, a bill of some-sort
The bill spoke of great changes
It spoke of a new type of sport
It spoke of life rearranges
No more needs! No more thneeds!

President Oborax wrote late into the night,
The candles were burning,
Wax dripped in the light.
He wrote until morning, and then wrote some more!
He wrote until he just couldn’t write anymore!
Then he stood up with his bill gripped in hand
He walked outside, and all across the land!
He strode to the land of the Truffula Trees,
And knocked on the door of the Once-ler he sees.

“Once-ler!” He yelled at the top of his voice.
“I’ve done it! I’ve got a bill I’m quite sure,
Will give us a choice!”
The Once-ler opened the door,
His glance was quite wary,
“Are you quite sure?”
Was the Once-ler’s query.
“Here it is!” Said Oborax,
Handing the Once-ler the bill.
“This might bring back the Lorax”
Said the Once-ler, “But still…”
“I wonder if perhaps he might be gone for good…
He left one day from where he once stood…
Will this be enough?
To bring back the Lorax?
Please tell me this stuff,
Oh President Oborax!”

He needn’t have wondered,
The grouchy old Once-ler,
For just as he pondered
Down floated a monster!
Or was it a monster?
The Once-ler looked closer
And together they looked, Once-ler and Oborax,
When what did occur
But down floated the Lorax!

The Once-ler Talks to President Oborax

The Lorax, with a new ending created by our blog group (similar to the original final paragraph, with a new twist and a new message):

So...
Catch! Calls the Once-ler!
It's a Truffula Seed!
It's the last one of all!
But don't go to the mall!
President Oborax--
Create a new bill! Treat it will care.
Add in clean water. Incorporate fresh air.
Develop new forests, don't get snorish.
Learn from my tale...
Don't be a snail!
Greed leads to despair,
So do not error,
If we all work together,
Then the Lorax
and all of his friends
may come back...
And stay forever!